Post your medium format photos!

tuco · 03-04-2011, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

[why does the images get softer when I upload them?]

Is the image size you uploaded the size shown here?

**Pål Jensen** · 03-04-2011, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by tuco

Is the image size you uploaded the size shown here?

Yes it is

stevebrot · 03-04-2011, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

[why does the images get softer when I upload them?]

I quit uploading to here because of that sort of problem. I link to my account on Flickr instead. I suspect that the site re-makes the image file with a higher level of compression. Are the files the same size (Kbyte) as the ones you uploaded?

Steve

Makten · 03-05-2011, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by scimmiaz

Makten, tones in snow are perfect! Good idea sub exposition at 320!

I'm not sure I know what you mean, because ISO 320 is overexposure compared to 400. But if we see the Fomapan 400 as an ISO 200 film, 320 is of course underexposure.

When scanning as opposed to photographic printing, the most important thing is to tweak the contrast curve to a good shape. I'll show you how next time I upload something here!

Makten · 03-05-2011, 09:43 AM

Since some people seems to like the tonality in my pictures, I thought I'd share some of the secrets of how I get there.

First of all, with snow present in the scene, correct exposure is quite important. The contrast is often at least two stops wider than without the snow. I usually expose the snow at zone VII, which means two stops over middle gray. Three stops plus is OK too, but craves a bit more work.

I'm not that good at developing yet, so I'll skip that part. But try to get medium contrast if you can.

Now the most important part; the scanning! Use the full color mode for positive (slide) film, since it is often the only way to take advantage of the scanners full bit depth and DR. The result is a very dull, negative image.
In Photoshop (or whatever you got), scrap red and green channel, leaving only blue. This is because the scanner optics have such a small aperture that diffraction will soften red and green more than blue due to their wavelengths.
Invert the image and squash the DR out with levels, so that you've only got a little bit of space to the right and left of the histogam.

Now it's time for the curve! And I'll show the result before explaing further:

This was a tough one, so the final image isn't that good. But look at the curve now; the steep parts indicates locally high contrast, which is present in three separate tonal ranges. #1 is in the shadows, to get structure in the door, #2 is in the midtones, to get structure and tone in the wall, and #3 is in the highlights, maintaining tonality in the snow.

You can't apply this recipy to whatever picture, but if you understand what has happened to each of the tonal ranges, you can do similar things with any image. Let the curve be steep only where contrast is to be enhanced. This way you can have full control over the tonal properties, far better than when printing on paper with an enlarger without doing any masking and such.
It takes some time, but it's generally worth it very much, compared to the realively "flat but contrasty" results that the scanner software auto modes gives.

**Pål Jensen** · 03-05-2011, 06:50 PM

Medium format fox

**Dougg** · 03-05-2011, 08:03 PM

What a great pic of the fox! You must have surprised him but he looks wary yet not very alarmed. Like the colors and textures...

scimmiaz · 03-06-2011, 01:04 AM

Makten, in my monitor the bricks texture appear strange while the door and the snow are perfect: way? Excellent work in tonal range!

**Dougg** · 03-06-2011, 01:54 AM

I noticed that too... the lowest area of brick (below the window) seems ok, but most of it has a sort of posterized look...

Makten · 03-06-2011, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by scimmiaz

Makten, in my monitor the bricks texture appear strange while the door and the snow are perfect: way? Excellent work in tonal range!

It actually looked that way, with two separate tones of red and gray.

I'll shoot it in color next time I pass, so you can see for yourself.

GeneV · 03-06-2011, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by stevebrot

I quit uploading to here because of that sort of problem. I link to my account on Flickr instead. I suspect that the site re-makes the image file with a higher level of compression. Are the files the same size (Kbyte) as the ones you uploaded?

Steve

I may do the same. I see that Flickr is the most popular with others here, and I sense that Photobucket may be changing my sharpness a bit, too.

Vertex Ninja · 03-06-2011, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

I may do the same. I see that Flickr is the most popular with others here, and I sense that Photobucket may be changing my sharpness a bit, too.

Flickr will slightly alter your photos too, but it's pretty minor. The smaller sizes used to get sharpened quite a bit, but I haven't noticed it much lately; could have been in my head. I've also read it suggested to upload 1024 wide images, but for the life of me, can't recall why.

**fs999** · 03-06-2011, 12:17 PM

A Pentaxed fox ! Wow ! wonderful !

eddie1960 · 03-06-2011, 12:27 PM

Retro 100 Ilfosol 3 1+9 ETRSI w/ MC40 f4 probably @ f11, but it was so long back i don't remember
the white dots in the black are lights from inside (think i got all the dust) a shot of the Loathed/Loved new Royal Ontario Museum addition (I'm of 2 minds myself)

This film scratches if you look at it the wrong way and curls like crazy, took over 2 weeks of flattening to make it reasonably scannable
Glad i don't have any left

Back to something better

tuco · 03-06-2011, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by eddie1960

Retro 100 Ilfosol 3 1+9 ETRSI w/ MC40 f4 probably @ f11, but it was so long back i don't remember
the white dots in the black are lights from inside (think i got all the dust) a shot of the Loathed/Loved new Royal Ontario Museum addition (I'm of 2 minds myself)

This film scratches if you look at it the wrong way and curls like crazy, took over 2 weeks of flattening to make it reasonably scannable
Glad i don't have any left

Back to something better

Nice architecture work.

03-05-2011, 06:50 PM	#1386
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Medium format fox Attached Images

03-06-2011, 12:27 PM	#1394
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,667	Retro 100 Ilfosol 3 1+9 ETRSI w/ MC40 f4 probably @ f11, but it was so long back i don't remember the white dots in the black are lights from inside (think i got all the dust) a shot of the Loathed/Loved new Royal Ontario Museum addition (I'm of 2 minds myself) This film scratches if you look at it the wrong way and curls like crazy, took over 2 weeks of flattening to make it reasonably scannable Glad i don't have any left Back to something better Last edited by eddie1960; 03-06-2011 at 01:13 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
First Medium Format	straightshooter	Pentax Medium Format	7	12-02-2019 10:11 PM
Medium format...	D4rknezz	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	04-06-2010 03:59 PM
Medium Format Soon?	k100d	Pentax News and Rumors	0	03-04-2009 12:09 PM
Medium Format	Buffy	Pentax Medium Format	5	03-19-2008 12:04 AM

03-04-2011, 04:44 PM	#1381
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,030	Originally posted by Pål Jensen [why does the images get softer when I upload them?] Is the image size you uploaded the size shown here?

03-04-2011, 04:56 PM	#1382
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by tuco Is the image size you uploaded the size shown here? Yes it is

03-04-2011, 08:18 PM	#1383
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Pål Jensen [why does the images get softer when I upload them?] I quit uploading to here because of that sort of problem. I link to my account on Flickr instead. I suspect that the site re-makes the image file with a higher level of compression. Are the files the same size (Kbyte) as the ones you uploaded? Steve

03-05-2011, 04:11 AM	#1384
Makten Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Stockholm Posts: 224	Originally posted by scimmiaz Makten, tones in snow are perfect! Good idea sub exposition at 320! I'm not sure I know what you mean, because ISO 320 is overexposure compared to 400. But if we see the Fomapan 400 as an ISO 200 film, 320 is of course underexposure. When scanning as opposed to photographic printing, the most important thing is to tweak the contrast curve to a good shape. I'll show you how next time I upload something here!

03-05-2011, 09:43 AM	#1385
Makten Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Stockholm Posts: 224	Since some people seems to like the tonality in my pictures, I thought I'd share some of the secrets of how I get there. First of all, with snow present in the scene, correct exposure is quite important. The contrast is often at least two stops wider than without the snow. I usually expose the snow at zone VII, which means two stops over middle gray. Three stops plus is OK too, but craves a bit more work. I'm not that good at developing yet, so I'll skip that part. But try to get medium contrast if you can. Now the most important part; the scanning! Use the full color mode for positive (slide) film, since it is often the only way to take advantage of the scanners full bit depth and DR. The result is a very dull, negative image. In Photoshop (or whatever you got), scrap red and green channel, leaving only blue. This is because the scanner optics have such a small aperture that diffraction will soften red and green more than blue due to their wavelengths. Invert the image and squash the DR out with levels, so that you've only got a little bit of space to the right and left of the histogam. Now it's time for the curve! And I'll show the result before explaing further: This was a tough one, so the final image isn't that good. But look at the curve now; the steep parts indicates locally high contrast, which is present in three separate tonal ranges. #1 is in the shadows, to get structure in the door, #2 is in the midtones, to get structure and tone in the wall, and #3 is in the highlights, maintaining tonality in the snow. You can't apply this recipy to whatever picture, but if you understand what has happened to each of the tonal ranges, you can do similar things with any image. Let the curve be steep only where contrast is to be enhanced. This way you can have full control over the tonal properties, far better than when printing on paper with an enlarger without doing any masking and such. It takes some time, but it's generally worth it very much, compared to the realively "flat but contrasty" results that the scanner software auto modes gives.

03-05-2011, 08:03 PM	#1387
Dougg Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Central Washington Photos: Albums Posts: 293	What a great pic of the fox! You must have surprised him but he looks wary yet not very alarmed. Like the colors and textures...

03-06-2011, 01:04 AM	#1388
scimmiaz Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Milano, ITALY Photos: Albums Posts: 37	Makten, in my monitor the bricks texture appear strange while the door and the snow are perfect: way? Excellent work in tonal range!

03-06-2011, 01:54 AM	#1389
Dougg Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Central Washington Photos: Albums Posts: 293	I noticed that too... the lowest area of brick (below the window) seems ok, but most of it has a sort of posterized look...

03-06-2011, 02:43 AM	#1390
Makten Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Stockholm Posts: 224	Originally posted by scimmiaz Makten, in my monitor the bricks texture appear strange while the door and the snow are perfect: way? Excellent work in tonal range! It actually looked that way, with two separate tones of red and gray. I'll shoot it in color next time I pass, so you can see for yourself.

03-06-2011, 11:45 AM	#1391
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by stevebrot I quit uploading to here because of that sort of problem. I link to my account on Flickr instead. I suspect that the site re-makes the image file with a higher level of compression. Are the files the same size (Kbyte) as the ones you uploaded? Steve I may do the same. I see that Flickr is the most popular with others here, and I sense that Photobucket may be changing my sharpness a bit, too.

03-06-2011, 11:52 AM	#1392
Vertex Ninja Inactive Account Join Date: May 2007 Location: Indianapolis, Indiana Posts: 652	Originally posted by GeneV I may do the same. I see that Flickr is the most popular with others here, and I sense that Photobucket may be changing my sharpness a bit, too. Flickr will slightly alter your photos too, but it's pretty minor. The smaller sizes used to get sharpened quite a bit, but I haven't noticed it much lately; could have been in my head. I've also read it suggested to upload 1024 wide images, but for the life of me, can't recall why.

03-06-2011, 12:17 PM	#1393
fs999 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Luxembourg Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,646	A Pentaxed fox ! Wow ! wonderful !

03-06-2011, 03:13 PM	#1395
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,030	Originally posted by eddie1960 Retro 100 Ilfosol 3 1+9 ETRSI w/ MC40 f4 probably @ f11, but it was so long back i don't remember the white dots in the black are lights from inside (think i got all the dust) a shot of the Loathed/Loved new Royal Ontario Museum addition (I'm of 2 minds myself) This film scratches if you look at it the wrong way and curls like crazy, took over 2 weeks of flattening to make it reasonably scannable Glad i don't have any left Back to something better Nice architecture work.